Also I watched Contact. It's one of those films I'd think I would've watched sooner given that I gravitate towards fantasy/scifi so much. Anyway I think I might have a new favorite as far as this kind of scifi movie goes. I certainly enjoyed it more than the more recent Interstellar or Arrival at least, and a large part is because the ending doesn't fall too far into the realm of ridiculous movie science. I suppose some might find the dialogue a bit too on the nose towards the end, but I prefer this sort of ending for a scifi movie over the more emotionally satisfying ones the other two aforementioned movies go for.

I remember liking Contact as well. Been a while since I've seen it, though. Might have to keep an eye out in case it comes to Netflix.

Logged

“MY NAME IS POKEY THE PENGUIN I LOVE CHESS!! IT IS LIKE BALLET ONLY WITH MORE EXPLOSIONS!”I Draw Stuff Sometimes

Expanded my list of slow, "pretend I'm smart" scifi movies with The Martian and Ex Machina. Funny I watch these two so close together because they came out in the same year and the two have something of opposite attitudes about technology- one has a general "science is teh awesome" message, and the other one has sort of a "science will screw us over" attitude.

They were both great, but I will say I'm a bigger sucker for space exploration than AI, so points to The Martian for me. I like that for once, there's a movie of this kind which focuses on the problem-solving abilities that the scientific method can bring and envisions a future of global cooperation as in the ideal of space exploration, rather than using space exploration as a vehicle to explore pseudophilosophical/spiritual gobbledygook which happens so often in these kinds of movies. Also I learned a lot about potatoes and human poop via tangential learning, so there was that too.

Also saw Gerald's Game, Stephen King adaptation number 5 or so in 2017 alone. This was a pretty good one though, after being underwhelmed by the It remake and The Dark Tower being...what it was. Interesting to see where these movies on direct-to-Netflix or other such streaming services will go- if I had the space I imagine a good long-term investment would be to just get a hugh jazz TV and watch movies like this at home instead of needing to drive/walk to a theater like a healthy functioning adult.

On the other end of the spectrum, I watched the Evil Dead trilogy. Funny seeing a series realize how ridiculous it is and becoming more and more self-parody over time, yet somehow still working as good movies.

But I guess more topically, I got back from seeing the latest installment of Disney’s plot to dictate global pop culture. I’d say Black Panther is one of the best MCU movies so far though. For reference, my favorite so far is probably The Winter Soldier, and I think I’d put this one just below that one.

I was already pretty interested in seeing the movie before it came out simply because of the unique visuals it promised, so I would’ve enjoyed the movie purely on that alone, but thankfully the plot/characters were pretty good too. Most notably, the villain Killmonger (yes, really) is probably the most well-developed and sympathetic villain in the MCU thus far. I was surprised that the movie decided to take the unfortunate implications that its premise had and decided to basically make the movie about that, something that could just as easily blow up in their faces if not handled correctly.

I will say that if you don’t like superhero movies, this one probably won’t change your mind. It still very predictably follows a three-act structure, and there’s really not any surprises along the way even within that framework. It has quite a few “that was clearly inserted later” type jokes the Disney movies are known for now, and while the side characters are a bit more well-developed than typical Marvel fare, they’re still pretty thin.

Saw Black Panther. Excellent, perhaps my favorite Marvel movie. Really enjoyed the fact they just didn't make a tired old origin story for the 1st movie.

Well it is an origin story. Its just that the hero in question already inherited the mantle and had spent a lifetime preparing for it instead of going "How do I shot web?". We're just seeing the worldbuilding that cements this (which is far more what the movie's actually about).

And speaking of, I find that the movie's strength really comes from the fact that it has a solid cast, working with fairly well written characters, and that the aforementioned worldbuilding avoids the classic tropes that plague non-modern, first world settings (stuff like stapling on a bunch of technomagic to explain the powers these dirt hut dwelling folk are hiding in their respective ancient ruins (even if the ruins themselves were basically some ancient rich asshole's summer pad or something), using old standbys like surviving Mayan, Greek or Egyptian lore which always feels like scraps or stuff stapled onto modern lifestyles except with fewer articles of clothing and surviving temple architecture/pottery decor as the theme, or just using the incredibly old standby of Atlantis or aliens; it was all stuff that's heavily based upon what the cultures used in the worldbuilding are doing today, with solid lore and proper plot macguffinry applied to flesh it out into its own thing; and most importantly, it didn't exile the movie to just the fantasy land's setting nor shove everything into a New York or LA fieldtrip as is common with visiting the outside world tropes).

One of the teachers I work with showed the class Hidden Figures as part of a Women's History Month unit. I thought the movie was well acted, told a very important story that needed to be told, and had some righteously poignant moments, but something about it felt overly glossy to me; like this was just by-the-numbers, play-it-safe Hollywood filmmaking. The move was about something quite extraordinary but the movie itself was anything but. When I view something whose aim is to blow the doors open and tell the truth that nobody wants to tell, I want it to "go there" and Hidden Figures never quite did. Admittedly, this is the punk/thrash guy in me talking, and the film as it stands is perfectly fine for mainstream middle America and goes as far as it needs to go to rope in that mass audience.

I feel as if I would get more out of the book than the film; that the book will likely give me the greater depth and detail I'm looking for. Reader's dilemma strikes again- the number of books I want to read overwhelmingly outnumbers the time I have to read them.

EDIT: So, I guess at the end of the day it's mission accomplished for Hidden Figures, because it piqued my curiosity about something I had scant knowledge/awareness about and is making me want to learn more.

EDIT 2: The other day, they were showing The History of the World: Part I on television. What a classic. Probably Mel Brooks' finest. So totally irreverent, bawdy, and hilarious beyond belief. Given today's cultural climate, there's no way they'd get away with making a movie like that any more, without getting downright skewered.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2018, 04:00:35 PM by Dincrest »

Logged

Sometimes I wonder if there was ever a time a last-place Olympic diver decided before their final dive, "I'm in last place, I have nothing to lose, I might as well have some fun with this" then yell "CANNONBALL!" from the diving board before launching into a cannonball.

Because my living skills students don't take the PARCC standardized tests but still have to come to school to make up snow days, we showed them the movie Coco today. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. Sure the plot was predictable and the twist could be seen a mile away, but I liked the characters, pacing, and the colorful visual design. I've always been fascinated by Mexico's Day of the Dead where you celebrate the lives of those departed, and the whole juxtaposition of a morbid skull festooned with flowers and vivid colors is one of those striking visual images that once seen, never leaves you.

Logged

Sometimes I wonder if there was ever a time a last-place Olympic diver decided before their final dive, "I'm in last place, I have nothing to lose, I might as well have some fun with this" then yell "CANNONBALL!" from the diving board before launching into a cannonball.

....really don't have much to say beyond that. The writing was on-point. Great timing, great characterization. It was a great time from start to finish, with a post-credits ending that...I think I might've seen a tweet or headline spoiling the post-credits scene, but didn't make enough sense out of context until I saw it myself, so I don't think it counts as spoiled?

Basically, I loved it. Sure, it didn't set the world on fire, but....why is that a saying? Seriously, I think if the world was on fire, we'd all be dead. Or living in underground vaults that are secretly lab experiments meant to stretch the limits of how much you can screw with people...speaking of which, Mission Impossible: Fallout Edition looks amazing. It's a very unexpected crossover, but I'm sure it'll be Game of the Year once all the bugs are patched out.

...what was I talking about? Oh yeah, The Avenger: Infinity Guantlet Acts 1 & 2. I saw. I laughed. I cried. I wooed and cheered. I left with a sense of hollowness and bitter disappointment at the fact that I bought the Beta Early Access version instead of waiting for the Complete Edition that'll release next year. But, that was my fault, since they only mentioned it in every one of their advertisements, except the ones I actually saw. I still cannot figure out how I missed that. It's like the entire internet is playing a practical joke on me, and I want it to stop!

But the joke's on you! This is the only Marvel movie that's based on a story I've already read! I already know how it ends!

...except they only used about 10% of said material...mostly just the basic concept, really...and it's set in a seperate universe...with only a small fraction of the original characters, most of whom are actually more important to the film than they were to the comic...and honestly, the only substantial part that they used was the part I never expected them to use...

...I'll just blame Disney until I invent time travel. Or the next movie comes out. Whichever comes first.

« Last Edit: June 19, 2018, 05:42:58 PM by Mickeymac92 »

Logged

“MY NAME IS POKEY THE PENGUIN I LOVE CHESS!! IT IS LIKE BALLET ONLY WITH MORE EXPLOSIONS!”I Draw Stuff Sometimes

Has anyone alive seen the new Murder on the Orient Express? It's the most amazing cast I have seen in a Hollywood flick in years and years, but there was such little buzz that i didn't even know it existed until I got on the plane two weeks ago and saw a trailer for it. Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot? Johnny Depp, Willem Dafoe, Daisy Ridley? All in one movie? Come on. This has to be awesome.

Logged

"You know, you're pretty cool too, Arvis. You like good music, good games, and good tennis." - Divingfalcons

Kenneth Branagh is a fine actor with Shakespearean pedigree... but I thought he was poorly cast as Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (which we watched with my English class as an end of the year treat.) I felt like he was too old, lacked flamboyancy, did not have the "rock star heartthrob" looks I associate with that character, and his hair was too short.

When I read the book and visualized its description of Lockhart, I pictured a hybrid of a Bret Michaels (Poison) and Sebastian Bach (Skid Row.) Long blond hair, heart-throbby rock star looks, the over-the-top flamboyance of their genre, and their douchey self-important attitudes. THAT is Gilderoy Lockhart!

Speaking of Harry Potter, one thing we hope to impress on at least one student is that there are a lot of really cool things that happen in the books that aren't in the films.

In one of my students' reading classes, we're watching Bridge to Terabithia. I read that book when I was in elementary school but never saw the film. The plot beats stay true to the book (the screenwriter is the author's son, after all), but it still feels a bit over-Disneyfied. In the book, the characters had more... character and there was a gritty undertone to it, because the characters were really facing some difficult things. That book had some real gut punches that definitely affected me as a kid.

Speaking of Disney, another end-of-year movie we watched was Wreck-It Ralph. I enjoyed it because it had a good balance of being both enjoyable for children and adults. I'm sure any parent who took their kids to the movie grinned during the

Sure it has a predictable story and themes that have been done before, but I thought they were decently done and I liked the worldbuilding. I think Wreck-It Ralph should have a TV series, because that could expand upon the worldbuilding and do more with the various video game worlds and their interactions. I also just saw the Wreck-It Ralph 2 trailer. I was not impressed. Basically, the trailer just felt like Disney stroking its own ego by saying, "We own everything!"

« Last Edit: June 15, 2018, 05:21:59 PM by Dincrest »

Logged

Sometimes I wonder if there was ever a time a last-place Olympic diver decided before their final dive, "I'm in last place, I have nothing to lose, I might as well have some fun with this" then yell "CANNONBALL!" from the diving board before launching into a cannonball.

Yeah, Wreck-It Ralph could've made for a really good okay TV series given how much ground it has to work with, and it still might not be off the table just yet, we just have to get past the series' 'Return of Jaffar' entry first.

Or you know, something something Di$ney something.

Also, I will fight you on Kenneth Lockhart (err, Gilderoy Branagh). Dude being older and not 'a young heartthrob' helped to provide a minor suspension of disbelief towards his lackluster abilities before his fraud reveal as it gave him a bit of a 'washed up/resting on his laurels' angle to work with.

Besides, they already had Tom Riddle, audiences can't handle two teenage heartthrobs dominating a film unless they fight each other, or are good enough buddies for the shippers to run wild with. :p

I saw Lockhart as thirty-something. So he'd be in that bracket where both younger and older fangirls could dig him (since in the book both Hermione and Ron's mom fangirl over Lockhart). Kinda like where Justin Timberlake is now.

Plus, I felt Branagh's performance as Lockhart was totally phoned in. I get that the movie portrayed him as a washed-out has-been, but in the book he wasn't a washed-out has-been yet. He was still riding the wave of his popularity. It was only after Ron and Harry exposed him as a fraud that he became a has-been, but not without using his name recognition to write a book about his amnesia.

Still, when it comes to "book vs movie" I am firmly on the side of "book is better."

Logged

Sometimes I wonder if there was ever a time a last-place Olympic diver decided before their final dive, "I'm in last place, I have nothing to lose, I might as well have some fun with this" then yell "CANNONBALL!" from the diving board before launching into a cannonball.

The Disaster Artist: I watched the movie the Room years ago at an independent cinema and it was hilariously bad. This movie covering its origin was an enjoyable watch. I can see why James Franco won a Golden Globe for portraying Tommy Wiseau.